An article last Sunday about the rise of hostility to Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands misstated the deportation policy advocated by Geert Wilders, an avowed anti-Muslim Dutch politician who leads the country’s third-largest party. Mr. Wilders has said that immigrant Muslims and their children should be deported if they break the law, or engage in behavior he has described as “problematic, ” or they are “lazy.” He has not advocated deportation for all immigrants and their children.Once again emphasis is mine.
This time the NYT is a little more subtle about it. You see, Wilders did say immigrants who come here only to draw benefits are not desirable guests. The NYT does a creative twist here: People drawing benefits are too lazy to work (that is how the NYT sees it, apparently). Hence Wilders wants lazy immigrants (and their children!) deported. And that bit about 'problematic behavior', that is so vague as to be meaningless. But it does work to cast a nice dark (brown?) pall over the figure of Geert Wilders.
As retractions go, this is the most spiteful, self-righteous manner to pretend to be admitting to a gross error, a massive fail of journalistic integrity. Rather then bravely and honestly owning up to an error (one which would, in earlier times, have led to the summary dismissal of the hack involved), the NYT chose to absolve itself in this unbelievably poor manner.
The NYT was presented with an opportunity to show its former quality and integrity. Dismayingly, they decided to use it to confirm, for all to see, the spiteful, dishonest and ungracious character of the 'new journalism' at the NYT. This is what failing at failing looks like.